4.  The applicants were born in 1963, 1954, 1971, 1963, 1975 and 1956 respectively and, according to their application forms, live in Istanbul.
5.  Between 22 February and 6 March 1997 the applicants were detained in police custody at the Istanbul Security Headquarters on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party); they claimed that they were subjected to various forms of ill-treatment there. In particular the applicants complained in their application form of the following types of treatment.
a)  Arif Çelebi
6.  The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been blindfolded, forced to remain standing or sitting for a long time, deprived of sleep, forced to listen to loud music, suspended, squeezed in the testicles, beaten, stripped and made to lie in cold water.
b)  Mukaddes Çelik
7.  The applicant complained, in particular, that she had been blindfolded, forced to remain standing or sitting for a long time, left exposed to the circulation of cold air, sworn at, refused toilet breaks and sexually harassed.
c)  Sultan Arıkan (Seçik)
8.  The applicant complained, in particular, that she had been blindfolded, suspended, sexually harassed, raped by insertion of a finger, sworn at, beaten and forced to listen to loud music and remain sitting for a long time.
d)  Bayram Namaz
9.  The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been beaten, subjected to “Palestinian hanging”, forced to remain standing, hosed with cold water, squeezed in the testicles, deprived of sleep, threatened with death and sworn at.
e)  Sedat Şenoğlu
10.  The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been beaten, suspended, hosed with cold water, sworn at, threatened and deprived of sleep.
f)  Necati Abay
11.  The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been suspended several times, squeezed in the testicles, hosed with cold water, forced to listen to loud music, threatened and forced to remain standing or sitting for a long time.
12.  On 26 February 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at a hospital, who noted that he had difficulty in moving his upper limbs.
13.  On 4 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who found that he had pain and difficulty in moving his right arm and that the skin on his scrotum had peeled away.
14.  On 6 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who noted that the previous findings remained valid.
15.  On 15 October 1999 the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute, on the basis of the above-mentioned medical reports on the applicant, issued a final report in which it concluded that the injuries noted in those reports rendered him unfit for work for two days.
b)  Mukaddes Çelik
16.  On 27 February 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at a hospital, who noted that she complained of stomach pain and of FMF (Familial Mediterranean Fever), which she had suffered from for the past thirty-two years.
17.  On 3 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Fatih Forensic Medicine Institute, who found no signs of ill-treatment on her body.
18.  On 6 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who found no signs of ill-treatment on her body.
c)  Sultan Arıkan (Seçik)
19.  On 27 February 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at a hospital, who noted that she had suffered a loss of strength in both shoulders and the left wrist, and had a bruise of 10 cm on the front of her left arm and a bruise of 0.5 cm on her right arm.
20.  On 4 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who found that she had an old bruise of 5 cm by 3 cm on the inner side of her right arm and a slight graze on her elbow. The doctor also noted that the applicant had slight redness on the inner left arm, sensitivity and pain in the arms, numbness in the fingers, slight redness on the back of her shoulders and a headache.
21.  On 6 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who noted that the previous findings remained valid and that the applicant had slight redness and pain in her right shoulder.
22.  On 15 October 1999 the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute, on the basis of the above-mentioned medical reports on the applicant, issued a final report in which it concluded that the injuries noted in those reports rendered her unfit for work for two days.
23.  According to the medical report issued by the Turkish Human Rights Association on 11 February 2008, the applicant had been examined by doctors at that association on various dates from 18 March 1997 onwards and found her to be suffering from a brachial plexus injury (nerve damage) which was consistent with her account of ill-treatment.
d)  Bayram Namaz
24.  On 26 February 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at a hospital, who noted that he suffered from pain during shoulder movements.
25.  On 3 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Fatih Forensic Medicine Institute, who noted that he had pain starting from his right shoulder up to his right elbow, loss of feeling in his fingers and pain in the elbow, under both scapular regions and in his testicles. The doctor concluded that these injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for three days.
26.  On 6 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who noted that he had pain in his left knee and on the right side of his back. He also found that he had pain and loss of strength in the right arm.
e)  Sedat Şenoğlu
27.  On 27 February 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at a hospital, who found no signs of ill-treatment on his body.
28.  On 3 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at Fatih Forensic Medicine Institute, who noted that he had pain in the back of his neck and on the right scapula and had difficulties in moving his neck. The doctor concluded that these injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for one day.
29.  On 6 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who noted that the previous findings remained valid.
f)  Necati Abay
30.  On 27 February 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at a hospital, who noted that he had a bruised region on his right elbow.
31.  On 3 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Fatih Forensic Medicine Institute, who noted that he had slight swelling on the upper right elbow and a 1 cm by 1 cm bruised region, pain during arm movements, slight loss of feeling in the fifth finger of the right hand and the second finger of the left and pain in the scrotum. The doctor concluded that these injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for three days.
32.  On 6 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who noted that he had loss of strength and pain in his right arm and elbow and loss of feeling in his fingers.
33.  On 6 March 1997 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, where they complained that they had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment while being held in police custody.
34.  Following the receipt of written complaints dated 10 and 11 March 1997 by some of the applicants that they had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody, the Fatih public prosecutor instigated an investigation into these allegations. In this connection, he requested from the relevant authorities all documents concerning the complainants' detention in police custody.
35.  On 8 May 1997 the Fatih public prosecutor heard evidence from all the police officers who had been on duty between 21 February 1997 and 6 March 1997. They denied that the applicants had been ill-treated as alleged.
36.  On 23 June 1997 the Fatih public prosecutor drew up a report in which he recommended that the public prosecutor at the Istanbul Assize Court initiate criminal proceedings against eight police officers, pursuant to Article 243 of the Criminal Code, as in force at the time.
37.  On 4 July 1997 the prosecutor at the Istanbul Assize Court filed a bill of indictment against eight police officers for the ill-treatment of fifteen detainees, including the applicants (hereinafter “the complainants”). The charges were brought under Article 243 of the Criminal Code.
38.  On 14 July 1997 the criminal proceedings before the Istanbul Assize Court commenced.
39.  In the meantime, on 17 July 1998, the Provincial Police Disciplinary Commission considered that there was no need to impose sanctions on the eight accused police officers on account of the lack of evidence.
40.  In the course of the proceedings, the first-instance court heard evidence from all the applicants, other plaintiffs and the accused police officers. The applicants, except for Necati Abay, joined the proceedings as civil parties. At a hearing on 2 October 1998 one of the complainants identified someone in the audience as one of the police officers who had tortured her. Subsequently, the public prosecutor filed an additional indictment against that individual and the number of accused increased from eight to nine persons. A number of times the court had to postpone the confrontation procedure since the accused police officers were not present in court and one police officer failed to appear before the court for over two years before an arrest warrant had to be issued in respect of him. In the meantime, on 7 March 1999, one of the plaintiffs, Mr Yeter, who had been arrested again, died in police custody.[1]
41.  During the proceedings the accused requested the court to hear evidence from witnesses attesting to the fact that a witness who had subsequently become a civil party had been pressured by the illegal armed organisation into fabricating claims of ill-treatment. Their requests were dismissed by the court. In protest, the legal representatives of the accused resigned. On 8 July 2002 the public prosecutor submitted his opinion on the merits of the case. After this date the applicants or their new legal representatives sought numerous extensions in order to file their final defence submissions. In response, one of the judges sitting on the bench entered a written objection against the decisions of the court to accord them on the ground that the accused were abusing their right of defence in order to prolong the proceedings with a view to ensuring that the prosecution became time-barred.
42.  On 2 December 2002 the first-instance court, on the basis of the evidence in the case file, acquitted five of the accused police officers for lack of evidence. However, referring to the evidence in the case file, it found it established that the four remaining police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters had intentionally ill-treated the complainants, in order to extract confessions from them. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 243 § 1 of the Criminal Code, the court sentenced each of them to one year and two months' imprisonment. It also made an order banning them from public service for three months and fifteen days. These sentences were subsequently reduced and later suspended on the grounds that the defendants had no prior criminal record and that the court was convinced that they would not reoffend.
43.  On 1 April 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance court's judgment in so far as it concerned the four convicted police officers on grounds of erroneous sentencing. It upheld the judgment in so far as it concerned the acquittal of one police officer and discontinued the proceedings as regards the four other acquitted police officers on the ground that the statutory time-limit for the offence had expired in respect of them.
44.  On 11 November 2004 the first-instance court discontinued the proceedings against the remaining accused police officers on the ground that the prosecution of the offences had become time-barred.
45.  In the meantime, on 7 February 2005, the legal representatives of the complainants filed a complaint with the public prosecutor against the Ministry of the Interior, the Security Directorate and some police officers who had prepared a report, alleging that, throughout the proceedings before the Istanbul Assize Court, both the complainants and their lawyers had been subjected to threats, intimidation and defamatory incidents. In particular, they complained that the public prosecutor had questioned them in relation to an anonymous defamatory letter sent to the court and objected to the contents of a report that had been prepared by two police officers in respect of the ill-treatment allegations made by one of the plaintiffs.
46.  On 29 November 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.